# Petition — Diamond v. Walter

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_0980%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1981
- **Citation:** 450 U.S. 995

## Text

;
[/ Sime Court, U.S,
- - | ILED
8 0 -9 94
NO.

DEG 4 1980

MICRAEL KODAK, JR., CLERK

In the Supreme Court of the United States

October Term 1980

HERMAN DIAMOND,

Petitioner,

LAMAR C. WALTER, Assistant United States
Attorney, United States Department of Justice
Respondent,

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

HERMAN DIAMOND, pro se
3610 Macceo Dr.

Savannah, Ga. 31410

Phone (912) 897-2442

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Has the lower Courts departed from ac-
cepted and usual course of Judicial Proc-
eedings so as to call for this Honorable
Court's power of supervision,.

When a District Court grants a Summary
Judgment in favor of Respondent,an U.S.
Assistant District Attorney,who files an
unauthorized Civil Complaint against Pla-
intiff and pretends to represent the U.S.
Government in his own complaint,for viol-
ations of Federal Law not adjudicated,
without Jurisdiction in conflict with the
Statutory provisions applicable, grants
abosolute judicial immunity,without a
hearing or trial,uponvtohsideration and
the Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit,affirm-
s the Judgment and denies a rehearing.
For a tort action,and for violations of
Federal and state laws and Articles of the
Constitution,and a Compact between Federal
Government and the State of Georgia,and
Petitioner's Civil Rights,and for Malicio-
us Abuse of Legal Process,to harm and cau-
se irreparable damage to Plaintiff and his
property by a fraudulent Permenant Injunc-
tion not authorized by law.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page
Questions presented, srcneccsesecece i
Statues involved, TETERURTET TTT 2
Jurisdiction, Hie'cés cebeeaeee Toe
Statement of the Case... .cevceevvseers 2
ATEWUMENE, coccccccccccccccccsccessess &

Revaew seule Lesue. cccccessccissurs oe

APPENDIX

PAGE
Complaint in CV 479-87 ..cccceseee tata
Order:randtJudgment:to; Consolidates. ..
Ca. 3092,pursuant to F.R.C.P.42 (a). 5a-6a
Decision of Court of Appeals, 5th Cir...
MOST ine CAI0S? cccccccscctsvccssecs OS
Judgment in CV479-87 ....ecseveceeee 8a
Rehearing denied,Court of Appeals .. 9a
Complaint CA 3092 ..wuwcrccsceeeee ee lL0A—i ja
Motion to dismiss ..ccccccccccccccsces 1m
Judgment in CA 3092 ..c.eeeeeeveesl 5Sa-16a
Georgia Cession,1802 ..csecceeesse17a-19a
Art. 4,6 of U.S.Constitution ........ 20a

U.S. STATUES
Pitke €6.0.9.6.9.45. Bae
eS B.S 15
Leh A 8 rn eeeee reas wees
34 U.8.6.5 869, ....00 &, 6,7,90,28 439019
99° 0.5.018 O06 * ci cdvcicsss: 9S
Code of Fed Regulations
33 C.F.R. 209260,(k)(1)(ii) 1973,..12,13
Fed.Rules of Crim. Procedure

Rule
3,4,10, eeaeeeveveeve eee eee eee ee eeere ‘9

42 (a) Fed. Rules Civ. Procedure, ...16

ARTICLES OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Article page
Dy ccvecee cowstdbebsacsesn Seumesnees oe
Be ccccccccceccceccsceceses 11, 13
De ckbeuecwsd dene eateenens 3, 14
\ PURE TELE EC LTC 6, 14,16
| Meer eTETTee eee Tere 14
OR, ‘wacewas ces becdnbedeseess 10,14

Whartons Crim. Law § 258 ccocccccccces 17
Administrative Law,S 213, ..sseeee+ 8,13
7% AM JUr 24,8 37, Porte, cccccccccce 7
gk” ee Ser

iv

GEORGIA STATE LAWS
1802 COMPACT.

1802 Compact, "Georgia Cession,
American State Papers,Public Lands
Vol ¥111,p.125,126, Gale & Seaton,

PAGE

1832, eeoeoeeeeeveeeeresveeveee > re F 6,14,16

15-101 wcccceccccccccccesccccceces
15-201 cccccccccvveccccccsscvcecves
S5-13910, scccccccccccccccseccsccces
105-1401, wcccccccccccccscccccscces
105-1402, wccccccccvcccesccccccese
LOS-ENOG, sc ccodccbessccccesceesess

ee S|
3,11
12
12
12
12

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term, 198_

HERMAN DIAMOND,
Petitioner,

versus

LAMAR C. WALTER,Assistant United States
Attorney,United States Department of Justice
Respondent

Petition On Direct Appeal To The' Court. of
Appeals For The Fifth Circuit

Petitioner seeks to review a Summary Judg-
ment from the District Court based on Con-
Sideration granting Judicial Immunity to a
Quasi-Judicial Officer and Affirmed by the
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

OPINION BELOW AND JURISDICTION

The lower Court,based on its opinion and
consideration issuedia: judgment in favor
defendant, Mr. Lamar C. Walter,January 18

1980, and the Court of Appeals fifth Cir-
_ cuit Affirmed,the Judgment of the Lower

Court, based on the records and briefs on

me

Aeenmenrs oon ne a ee ee ee 2 er eee

file, pursuant to Rule 18.
Petition for rehearing was denied,October
7,1980.0n October 21,1980 the Judgment of
the Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit was ma-
de the Judgment of the Lower Court.

JURISDICTION 28 U.S.C.8 1252

Jurisdiction is invoked in which an
Federal Agency and an Officer or Federal
employee is a party.

For violations of the 1802 ‘GEORGIA
CESSION' A Compact between the Federal G-
overnment and the State of Georgia.

STATUE"S INVOLVED
28 U.S.C.8 1331 and 28 U.S.C.8 1343(4)
42 U.S.C.8§ 1983.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On the 15th Day of March 1979, Peti-
tioner Diamond,filed a Civil Complaint NO.
479-87 against a former United States As-
sistant District Attorney, for the South-
ern District of Georgia, Savannah Georgia.

2

Mr. Lamar C. Walter, a resident of Chatham
County, Ga. for vilation of his Civil Ri-
ghts pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C.8 1983

and for violations of his rights pursuant
to Articles of the U.S. Constitution and
his rights under Georgia Law, and ju-
risdiction is invoked : to secure_redress
for damages pursuant to 28 U.S.C.8 1331 and
1343 (4) (A.pla-4a) He is sued Individu-
ally and in his official capacity,(A, 1a-
para 3). Mr. Walter is also sued for dam-
ages for violating the ‘ Georgia Cession'
of 1802, a compact between the Federal G-
overnment and the State of Georgia and

its citizens. (A.par.10.) (A.p.17a-19a)..
pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the U.S.
Constitution. (A.p.20a),and Georgia law
Title 15-201,-15-101, it's boundries and
the Sovereign) rights of the state and its
citizens.whereas the Federal Government
granted jurisdiction and ceded its autho-
rity to the State for subdividing Georgia
into Alabama and Mississippi. (A.p.17a-19a)
over the lands of Georgia.

MR. Walters acting under color of law did
not have jurisdiction or authority over
Petitioner or his property to file a civil
complaint in the name of the United States
for a assummed misdemeanor to secure a pe-
rmenant Injunction over Petitioner's prop-
erty, specifically not authorized by law,
and in direct violation of several Articles
of the U.S. Constitution, by malicious ab-
use of legal process to secure results

the laws of congress and the state did not %
intend for him to obtain,and the fraudulent
manner’in which atpermenant Injunction ov-
er Petitioner's property.

On April 5,1973, Mr. Lamar Walter,U.S.
assistant District Attorney, filed a civ-
il complaint NO.3092, (A.10a-13a) against
petitioner Diamond, seeking a: P%
order and permanent injunct.(par.1p.1i2a)

3

from depositing or dumping any refuse in
the marshlands adjoining Richardson Creek.
said dumping being in violation of the l-
aws of the United States, no permit(A ila
par.4) and upon information and x ge (A

par.5).for violation of 33 U.S.C.8 403,407

The Complaint is in the name of the Un-
ited States of America, Phaintiff ,and by
and through its undersigned Counsel, (sign-
ed by Lamar C. Walter, (A i3a)

urisdiction invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C

1345, (10a)(par.1) That on April 4,1973

and at times unknown to Plaintiff, (A10a-
11a,par. 3). said violations did accure.

Petitioner, filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint on grounds that it
fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. (A.1i4a)

The Lower Court issued a Judgment in
CA 3092 on April 17,1974, (A,15a-16a)
for violations of 33 U.S.C.8 403,for not
having a permit,defendant,Diamond,his
servants,agents, employees, attorneys,
successors and assigns be permanently
enjoined and restrained from engaging in
or causing, indirectly or permitting any
fill or construction operations on the
area in dispute,bounded by Richardson Cr-
eek and on the South by Oatland Island Rd,
Chatham County Ga.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decisi-
on in U.S.v. Diamond, 512 F 2d i Cert.
denied 423 U.S. 928 (5thCir.1975

The Courts decision was based on the
Denial of a permit for a Bulkhead and not

for fill,as the U.S. Attorney had several

4

meetings with the District Engineer to
influence the denial of the permit as the
exhibits in CA 3092, whereas the letter
secured pursuant to the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act ‘indicates,*That the denial of
permit will influence the Courts decision
for a favorable verdict. —

On 4 December 1975, The Government
filed a motion to consolidate CA 3092 with
CA 475-221, whereas Petitioner had reque-
sted a hearing for the denial of the per-
mit (A.5a-6a) Thereby granting a new tri-
al,by order of the lower Court, and since
4th December 1975 after 3 hearings the C-
ourt has of this day not issued a judgme-
nt in CA 3092, 5 years has elapsed thereby
the statue of limitations has run.

- The Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit
had modified the judgment in 79-2942, :
so as to remove the Dock and walkway from
the judgment although no judgment was is-
sued in the New Trial, eg agem 28 April
1980, Whereas their authority to revive
the old judgment is without jurisdiction.

In Civil Action 479-87, The lower
Court grant a judgment in favor of the U.
S. Assistant Attorney, respondent,Walter
in its opinion that the Government Attorney
had absolute immunity. (A. 8a)

The Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
confirmed and a rehearing was denied(A.9a)
7th October 1980.

x

-

~ = ‘ . . ¥

- -
ae

The lower Court issued its judgment
based on consideration and did not grant a
hearing to allow petitioner to present his

5

case or facts before a jury as requested

in the petitioner's complaint for damages
(A.4a), and as guaranteed by the 7th Ar-

ticle of the U.S.Constitution.

ARGUMENT

Mr.Lamar C. Walter, former U.S. Ass-
istant District Attorney for the Southern
district of Georgia, Savannah, Ga. is a
citizen and resident of Savannah, Ga.

He is being sued as an individual and
as and official of the United States Dep-
artment of Justice. (A.2a,par.3) in a tort
action for injuries and damages and for
taking of property by unlawful permenant
Injunction not authorized by Acts of Cong-
ress and the State of Georgia and the 1802
Compact ,(A.15a-16a) injunction , (A.17a-
say Coupast Of 1802, and Georgia laws (A.-
23a). having caused irreparable damages an-
d harm to Petitioner.and for malicious ab-
use of legal process and malicious prosec-
ution not authorized by law,

The complaint, Civil Complaint, CA -
3092 filed by Mr Walter, (A.10a-13a) on
5th April 1973 is prima facia evidence of
his unlawfull action without Judicial aut-
hority, (A.10a) as he states, "Now comes
the plaintiff, United States of America, by
and through its ‘undersigned counsel’.
Mr. Walter has no authority to act as co-
unselfor the Federal Government,to initia-
te a civil suit in equity fer a violation
of a misdemeanor, 33 U.S.C.8 403, for not
having secured a permit. (A.11a, par.3,4)
(the Judgment was for violation of 403)
(A.15a).

Title 33 U.S.C.8 406, clearly states
that the proper proceedings for an injuct-
ion may be instituted by the Attorney Gen-

6

eral of the United States. (A.7a) The
complaint makes no mention of any author-
ity by the U.S.Attorney General authouri-
zing Mr. Walter to initiate the complaint
CA 3092. (A. 10a-13a)

Mr. Walter cannot represent a third
party,the United States Government without
the statutory law.

74 AM JUR 2d, TORTS; unauthorized
prosecution in the name of another.

28 U.S.C.8 515, when specifically
directed by the Attorney General conduct
any kind of 7 proceedings. The record
and the complaint makes no reference or is
there any.

A court of equity, has no jurisdict-
ion over the prosecution, the punishment,
or pardon of crimes, or misdemeanors, To
assume such a jurisdiction,or bill in equ-
ity to restrain or relieve against procee-
dings for punishment of offenses, is to
invade the domain of Courts of common law

Re SAWYER, 124 U.S. 200,210, 31 Led, 402,
105

The Statue, 33 U.S.C.8 403 and 406

It is urged that the statues does not co-
ntiplate or authorize the alleged depriv-
atation of property. (A. 7a)

Where an officeris proceeding under
an unconstitutional act, its invalidity
suffices to show that he is without autn-
ority,andiiteisnothis absence of lawfull
power and his abuse of authority in imp-
osing or enforcing in the name of:-the Un-
ited States, unwarrantable exactions or
restrictions, to the irreparable loss of
Petitioner, which is the basis of the Co-
mplaint, = © for the Judgment (A.15°:
16a) secured by Mr. Lamar Walter. responds.

7

ee

re |

ent, denies Petitioner the use of his
land or protection or enjoyment,

x te Yo 209 U.S. p.159, 52 L.ed 728
13 L.R.A. °

( Also denies petitioner the right to
construction and the use of the Dock and
walkway already approved by a U.S.Army
Corps of Engineers permit, as the Court of
Appeals fifth Circuit has modified in
79-2942 (A.6a) on April 28,1980.)

And a similiar injury may be inflicted
and there may exist grounds for equitable
relief, when an officer, insisting that he
has the warrant of the statue, is transce-
nding its bounds, and thus unlawfully ass-
uming to exercise the power of the govern-
ment against the individual owner, is GUI-
LTY of invasion of private property.

PHILADELPHIA CO. v. STIMSON, 223 U.S.620-
622, 56 L-ed 577,578.

LITTLE v. BARREME, 2 Cranch 170, 2 L.ed
243,

The conduct of the respondent, constitutes
an unwarrantable interference with proper-
ty of the petitioner, it’s resort to equi-
ty for protection is not to be defeated up
on the grounds that the officer from pers-
onal liabillity whése rights of property
they have wrongfully invaded.

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S.196,220,221
27 L.e@. 171,161,262.

Administrative Law,& 213 - Judicial Review
of orders,-Court will not substitute own
Judgment.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COM. v. CHENERY
CORP. 318 U.S. 78-80, 87 L.ed.627.

U.S.v. KANE, 602 F.2d 490-494, state that

8

the denial of a permit is not a violation
of. the law, per se.

The complaint signed by Mr.Walter as
Attorney for the Federal Government was
not supplemented by an affidavit to supp-
ort his charges that Petitioner was in
violation of Federal law,as required when
his complaint is based on his own belief
and information not supported ty the in-
former, and not statedtany grounds either
for his information or belief. Did he know
exactly where the violation occurred,

in the Marshlands adjoin: Richardson Cre-
ek, (Richardson creek is 6 miles long )
(A. 10a-12a, par. 3,4,5,6,7,8,)

RICHMOND MICA CO. v. DECLYNE, 90 FEd. Rep.
orter 660,661

Petitioner file a motion to dismiss comp-
laint for it fails to state a claim upon

prey ioe can be granted to petitioner
A.1i4a). 9

The judicial authority of Mr. Walter
as Federal Attorney,that he can institute
and he must fanstitutex¢eriminal proceedi-
ngs before a magistrate for the arrest of
persons reasonably suspected of avcrime:
when he has information that such offens-
es have been committed, Fed Rules of Crim
Procedure,

RULE 3. Complaint, it must be made
upon oath before a magistrate,

RULE 4, Arrest Warrant or summons |
4 (a) issuance, a warrant for the arrest
of defendant shall issue.

RULE ¥0. Arraignment, shall be con-
ducted in open court, and shall consist
of reading the indictment or information
to the defendant and calling upon him to

plead thereto. He shall be given a copy
of the indictment or information before
he is called upon to plead.

Therefore we have.a criminal complaint
and the Government Attorney's malicious
abuse of legal process to file a civil
complaint and place the civil trial on
the courts calender for trial without due
process of law and equal protection in
violation of the 4th and 14 amendments: 6f
the U.S.Constitution, and the malicious
prosecution for the violation of not ha-
ving a permit pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 403

Therefore the Governments Attorney
would be guilty of a misdemeanor or malf-
easance in office,since his action are
not in the performance of his judicial
capacity.

In Kittler v. Kelsch, N.D.216 N.W.
898, 56 A.LeR. 1220, 122k%

The Attorney did act as a judicial
officer whereas in CA 3092 the Attorney
was not.acting in his judicial capacity.

Schneider v. Sheppard 192 Mich.82
158 N.W. 182

Shaw v. Moon, 117 Or. 558, 45 A.L.B
600, 245 Pac. 318.

The acts of the States Attorney
where the complaint without affidavit
required by law in criminal procedure’s,
acts without jurisdiction.

The United States District Attorney, Mr.
Jackson Smith, Did not authorise the pr-

gsecution of petitioner as his official
utiles requireé,whereas the Assistant,

Attorney assummed unlawfull authority to
prosecute his own complaint without the
knowledge of the U.S.District Attorney and

10

absolute unqualified immunity for a pro-
secution conceived and conducted corruply
with malice and bad faith.

Leong Yau v. Carden, 23 Haw. 362;

The lower Court in its opinion granted

a judgment (A.8a) for Respondant as to
absolute immunity and the Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit Affirmed, This is Judicial
error and the facts must be tried before

a jury and not by consideration and Summ-
ary judgment.for his unofficial acts.

The Judgment secured by the Respond-

ent, See a): not authorized by law,
33 U.S.C.8 406 (A.7a)violates Articles 4
and 5 of the Constitution, a taking of
private property without due process and
without just compensation, and in violat-
ion of the 1802 Compact between the Fede-
ral Government and the State of Georgia.
by xe jurisdiction over the property
of a citizen of the State of Georgia, in
violation of Article II of the Compact,
as stated in,as published in Gale,Seaton
1832. p.125,126.

Mississippi v. Johnson,71 U.S.439,
18 L.Ed 475,

cited that the 1802 compact was unalt-
erable and irrevocable.

Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia,
in 8 L.ed 475, 5 Peter 106 U.S.41

1802 compact granted the State of Geo-
rgia full soveregnty.

The judgment violates Georgia laws
(A.22a) Ga. Code 15-101, Boundries of the
state,

Ga Code 15-201, Extent of the States
Sovereignty and jurisdiction (A.23a)

11

Ga. Code; 85-1310; The right to levee
and ditch for overflows and freshets.

Ga. Code; 105-1401; Interferring with the
enjoyment of private property.

Ga. Code; 105-1402; Bare possession of
lands shall authorize the possessor to
recover damages from any person who shall
wrongfully in any manner interfere with
such possesion.

GA. CODE; 105-1406; DAMAGES FOR CONTINUI-
NG TRESPASS, AND SUBSEQUENT DAMAGES ON A
DAY TO DAY BASIS.

The District Court is without juris-
diction to issue a judgment. for an unlaw-
full Civil Complaint by a third party
fraudulently obtained without and in vio-
lation of statutory laws of C ngress(A. 72)
33 U.S.C.8 LO6, and 18 U.S.C.8 Fite ‘

The District Court, cannot substitute
its opinion for that of the U.S.Army Corp
of Engineers, that is authorized to issue
permits and is granted that authority by
the Act of Congress, Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1,(21A

and must be determined by the 33 C.F.R.

8 209260(k)(%) (ii) Shoreward limits of
jurisdiction(A. 21a) (1973 code) and such
regulations must be posted, in conspiciou-
sly and appropriate places, for the infor-
mation of the public,No such regulations
have been or now is posted in such places.

Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to

28 U.S.C.§ 1345; UNITED STATES AS PLAINTI-
FF; Except as otherwise provided by Act of
Congress, the District Courts shall have

original jurisdiction of all civil actions

12

suits or proceedings commenced by the
United States or by any agency or offi-
cer thereof EXPRESSLY authorized to sue
by Act of Congress.

The Lower Courts cannot and will not
substitute it’s opinion for that of the
U.S.Secretary of the Army,its authority
by Act of Congress Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899 requires that the permit or it's
violation of 33 U.S.¢.8 403, must be det-
ermined d 3 U.S.C. , and 33 C.F.R.-
209260 (ks (4 (ii) (A.21a) and upon due
public notice,

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; 8 213; Court will not
substitute own Judgment,

The«Court has substituted it;s own jud-
gment in CA 3092, since there'was no trial
by jury nor was there any request by the
U.S.Secretary of the Army nor any inter-
vention by him to have the District Atto-
rney to act on his behalfas required bylaw.

There were several hearings and the
District Court issued its own opinion
and Summary Judgment in Ca 3092 initiated
and filed by , Respondant WALTERS, in
the name of the United States.

Whereas the Judgment, is a BILLOF ATT-
AINDER, in that it confiscate Petitioners
property for an assummed violation and °
works blood and corruption on his family
and assignees, as stated in the Judgment
(A. 15a-16a) in violation of Article and
Amendment 4 of the U.S.Constitution, The
right of the people to be secure in their
persons,houses papers, and effects,and
Amendment 5, Indictment,punisment, etc.
No person shall be held to answer for a
infamous crime unless upon a presentment
or indictment of a grand jury, nor be de-
prived of life,liberty or property,with-

13

out due process of law and without just
compensation.

and pursuant to Article 14, Equal prote-
ction of the law.

Article 10, powers not delegated to the
United States,

Whereas the powers of Cession granted to
the State of Georgia, by the Act of Con-
gress in Ratifying the 1802 Compact
in ceding the jurisdiction over the
lands of the State of Georgia to the St-
ate. pursuant to Article 11, (A.17a-19a)

Article 7 of the Constitution,grants

Petitioner a jury trial in all controver-
sies over $20,00. Petitioner has demanded

- jury trial for a tort Action in CV 479-
7°

Articles 4 and 6 of the Constitution bas-
ed on the 1802 Act, (A. 20a) is violated
by the Judgment secured by the unlawfull
action of the Assistant Attorney in CA-
3092 (A.15a-16a)-states, IT IS ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the defendant,
Herman Diamond, his servants, agents,em-
ployees, attorneys.successors, and assign-
s, and each of them , be permanently en-
joyned and restrained from engaging in or
permitting suffering directly or in dire-
ctly, any fill or construction operation
on the area in dispute, bounded on the
north by Richardson Creek and the South
by Oatland Island Road, Chatham County,
Georgia..

This Judgment is a clear violation
all Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.8
1983, to harm and maliciously damage
Petitioner and to take his property for
a misdemeanor not properly brought before
this Honorable Court, pursuant to Criminal
procedure and the Rule there under and

14

for the violations as stated in the pet-
ition. (A.16a) and to violate Title 33 -
U.S.C. 406, which Act of Congress states
the proper manner in which to prosecute
for criminal viclations and upon convic-
tion the ATTORNEY GENERAL may institute
Civil proceedings, and not the Respond-
ant, Walter's. as an Assistant Attorney.

SMITH v. U.S.,CA. Ga. 1967, 375 F.
2d. 243 certiori denied, 88 S.Ct. 76,
389 U.S.841, 19 L.Ed.2d 106

U.S. v HALL.C.A. CAL.1944, 145 F.2d.

781, Cert. denied, 65 S.Ct. 1016, 324 U.
S. 871, 89 L.Ed. 1425,

The respondant, Walter, did direct
several employees to search by drilling
on his property "°° to see if his
property,the high ground contained any
marshland below the surface and to sur-
vey by topograhic means the elevations
of the lands of petitioner, during the
several hearings and to take several ph-
oto graphs on severa} occassions without
a warrant and in violation of the faws;-
not to trespass on Petitioners property

in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.8 2236

18 U:S.C.8 2236, directs and,;without
probable cause searches property with-
out a search warrant.is fined a $1000.
and for subsequent searches shall be :
fined $ 1000. and or imprisoned for not
more than one year.

The record will show that Petition-
er has filed a brief of finding of facts
and citation of laws to substantiate, his
request for a jury trial and his complaint
nt and fortdamages, along with. the exhib-
its in the New trial in CA 3092 granted

15

RR RR RRR RRR RO OR RINE Ee) SETS RRR END om SEER ENE Ss

on 4th December 1975 upon motion by
the Federal Government, pursuant to Fed.
Rules of Civ. Procedure, RULE 42 (a).
(A. 5a-6a) and since 1975 after 3 hearings
whereas petitioner placed 28 exhibits in
evidence without any objections from the
Goverment Attorneys,_1/ By Mr. Edmund
Booth Jr. of Augusta,Ga.where he is empl-
oyed as an U.S.Assistant District Attorn-

ey.

The District Court is in wiolation
of Article 7, amendment of the U.S.Const-
itution for not granting petitioner a tri-
al to prove his tort actions and violation
of Title 42 U.S.C.8 1983 and the several
article and amendments of the Constituti-
on and the Compact of 1802, for malicious
abuse of legal process of law and the un-
lawfull complaint -without jurisdiction
in the name of the United States contrar
to statutory law and acts of Congress, to
issue a Judgment in favor of Respondent,
Lamar C. Walter, Former U.S.Attorney,and
affirmed by the Court of Appeals Fifth
Circuit,and rehearing denied, 7th October
1980 *(A.8a) Judgment, (A.9a) denial of
rehearing.

Tnhe- respondent has not: testified.in
any of the, hearings inCA 3092 and in the
new trial whith: vacates the original Jud-
ment,and where a new judgment must issue
in a new trial,no final judgment as of
this date has been issued,and the dormant
complaint has run the statue of limitation=
of years.

Where a statue prescribes a particular
mode of procedure for the enforcement of

1 / Mr. Lamar c. Walter was was releived
of his office as Assistant U.S.Attorney in
January 1976.and replaced by Mr. Booth.

16

a penalty for an offense therein created,
That mode of procedure must be followed.

Wharton Criminal Law, 8 253

Title 33 U.S.C.8 406, is the statue
that provides the means and manner that:a
criminal procedure for fine and prison or
both, and ThetAttorney General, ‘MAY'
initiate the Givileproeeedings to secure
a pliminary injunction for the removal of
any obstruction for violations of .

Title 33 U.S.C.8 403.

Therefor an Assistant U.S.District Attor-
ny, such as Mr. Lamar C.Walter,who claims
to represent the United States Government
in his complaint, CA 3092, (A.10a)states

" by and through it's undersigned Counsel'
is prima facia evidence that he has not
complied with the Statutory provisions of
the law, since CA3092 is a civil Complaint.
Repondent is without authority or jurisd-
iction,either to represent the United St-
ates or to have the complaint placed on
the court calender for a hearing as for
violations as to criminal procedure for
violations of Title 33 U.S.C.8 403,

Therefore the Government Attorney is
without authority to waive the criminal
fine and or imprisonment and sue for the
judgment,that is also unauthorized by law.

U.S. v. Morin, DC Ind.1866, Fed CaseNoO
15810,

64 AIR 34.8 10; B, Where officer acts
without jurisdiction.

Therefore the District Court and the

Court: of Appeals Fifth Circuit, hae comm-
itted.a.grave injustice in affirming the
actions of the HeSpondent,and have taken

17

jurisdiction over a civil complaint that
is a 'mere nullity’ and committed grave
and serious violations ofsethe Constitution
and the laws of Georgia and damages to th-
e Petitioner iniissuing a permenant Injun-
tion not authorized by law, and in violat+
ions of his Civil Rights and immunities
under the law.

Where Petitioner has demurried the
complaint and countersued for damages,
all of his legal actions have been ignored
setaside over the past several years,and
have allowed his property to rot, decay
and become useless and worithiless,are dama-
ged beyond recovery, all because he has
stood up for his rights and pursued his
legal means through the courts with proper
procedures and on two occassions have been
denied Certiorarijto this Honorable Court,
the stigma seems to be, ‘The Petitioner is
proceeding, pro se. emphisis added.

The malicious abuse of legal process
and the unauthorized manner to secure the
permenant injunction without jurisdiction
by the Courts and the Respondent requires
the supervision of this Honorable: Court,
to correct and reverse the decisions of
the lower courts and to grant petitioner
the legal means to secure redress for the
malicious and irreparable: damages, by tri-
al by jury.

Respectfully submitted

Arran Beemnad

Herman Diamond, pro se
3610 Macceo Dr.
Savannah, Ga. 31410
(912) 897-2442

18

APPEBDIX
m

la

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF GEORGTA
Savannah Division

Herman Diamond,

Plaintiff
vs.

Lamar C. Walter,
Assistant United
States Attorney,
United States
Department of

Justice, Defendant

Civil Action
No .479-87

a i ee ee See See ee ee”

COMPLAINT

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is in-~
voked. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and..
1343 (4). This is an action at law autho-
rized and instituted pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The jurisdiction of this Court _
is invoked’ to secure redress by way of *
damages for the violation by Defendant of
rights secured to Plaintiff by Fourth;
Fifth, Sixth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amend-
ments to the Constitution of the United
States, and by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ‘The pend-
ent jurisdiction of this Court is alsouw=+
invoked to secure redress by way of damages
forsdenials by Defendant of rights secured
to Plaintiff by Georgia Law. SR GRY |

- _- - ovo ths “6p o ed

2. Plaintiff Herman Diamond is.a‘citi-” = ~~
zen of ‘the United States; propertyowner“i « &
and resident of Chatham County, Geereimartias-oand

>) > a a

——

rt

2a

3. Defendant Lamar C. Walter, as
Assistant United States Attorney for the
Southern District of Georgia, and resi-
dent of Chatham County, Georgia, is sued
individually and in his official capacity
as Assistant United States Attorney.

4%, On or about April 5, 1973, Defend-
m ant Lamar C. Walter, acting wnder calor
of law, filed a civil complaint, No. 3092
against Plaintiff Herman Diamond, for vio-
lations of Federal Law pursuant to 33
U.S.C.A. § 403 and 407 and jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1345, seeking a temporary restraining
order and permanent injunction over Plain-
tiff's property on Oatland Island Road,
Chatham County, Georgia, and asking that
the Court award damages both compensatory
and punitive, and costs for the above action.

5. Defendant Walter, Assistant United
States Attorney, maliciously and without
probable cause, secured a false and mis-
leading affidavit from Dr. Fredrick Marland
onoor about April 5, 1973, stating that
Plaintiff Herman Diamond was filling the
State's marshlands in violation of the State
Marshland Act. |

6. Plaintiff Herman Diamond was charged
by Dr. Frederick Marland with violation of
the Marshland Act on April 4, 1973, and
Plaintiff Herman Diamond was acquitted by
a jury in the State Superior Court for vio-
lation of the Coastal Marshland Act on
January 22, 1974, thereby establishing that
the affidavit used in conjunction with the
complaint was false and misleading and only
referred to a State violation.

7- Defendant Walter, prosecutor for the
United States Government, through false and
altered evidence, caused a permanent

3a

judgment over Plaintiff's property on
Oatland Island Road, Chatham County,
Georgia. This continuous and permanent
injunction denied Plaintiff the right to
any new construction or fill on Plaintiff's
property, thereby denying Plaintiff Herman
Diamond the full use, enjoyment and pro-
tection of his property guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States under
Article 4 and taking without due process
under Article 5 of the Constitution, and
denial of due process under Article 14 of
the United States Constitution.

8. Defendant Lamar C. Walter is not
authorized by law to institute a complaint
in the name of the United States, third
party or pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 547.

9. Defendant Walter has not presented
a certificate of authorization to institute
a civil complaint in the name of the United
States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 510 and 515.

10. Defendant Walter, Assistant United
States Attorney, has no jurisdiction over
Plaintiff Herman Diamond pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1345 nor his property. The April
26, 1802 Act of Congress, "The Georgia
Cession" and the State of Georgia's Reso-
lution of Acceptance pursuant to Article II,'
whereas the Federal Government ceded juris-
diction over the lands within the boundaries
of Georgia to the State of Georgia, and as
stated in Georgia Code Ann. 15-201.

11. Defendant Lamar Walter has no juris-
diction. over Plaintiff Herman Diamond or
his property pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 8 547.

12. ~The’ actions of said Defendant as de-
scribed herein have violated the rights of
Plaintiff as secured to him by the Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States, and
by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Said actions also have
deprived Plaintiff of the right to use, en-

ha

joy and protect his property and from mali-
cious prosecution as secured to him by the
laws of the State of Georgia.

13. Plaintiff claims general damages
arising from the judgment over Plaintiff's
roperty alleged herein in the amount of

75,000.00.

14. Because of the wrongs alleged herein,
Plaintiff was compelled to employ legal
counsel to defend himself and his property
in order to secure a release or removal of
the permanent injunction and defending said
false charges at expense to Plaintiff of
$25,000.00.

15. Plaintiff was compelled by reason of
Defendant's unlawful actions to lose over
100 days from his labor for attendance in
Court. The value of his labor being
$100.00 per day.

16. Plaintiff was greatly humiliated,
pained and shamed by his prosecution and
claims exemplary damages in the amount of
$100,000.00 by reason of aggrevation in the
acts of Defendant set forth above.

17. Plaintiff seeks damages for the tak-
ing of his property from April 5, 1973 at
$100.00 per day. Plaintiff has suffered as
of this date damages in the amount of
$219,000.00.

18. Plaintiff has suffered total damages
in the amount.of $429,000.00.

WHEREAS Plaintiff Herman Diamond prays
that a jury be empannelled to hear his cause,
that he be awarded damages in the amount of
$429,000.00 and his costs, including rea-
sonable attorney's fees.

This 15th day of March, 1979.

Saw Prawend.-

Sa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CUURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

Herman Diamond, )
Plaintiff,
CIVIL
ih : ACTION
United States of America NO.
and United States Army 475-221
Corps of Engineers,
Savannah District, )
Defendants, )
ORDER

The defendants have filed a motion
to consolidate the above action with

Civil Action Number 3092, United States

v. Herman Diamond, now pending before
this Court. The Court having read and
considered the motion is of the opinion
that consolidation is proper under Rule
42 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Accordingly, and for good
cause thus appearing, it is,

©... ORDERED; ADJUDGED, and. DECREED that

6a

hereby consolidated with Civil Action NO.
3092, United States v. Herman Diamond.

This 4 th day of December, 1975.

Alexander A. Lawrence
Chief Judge, United States
District Court, Southern
District of Georgia.

Appeals from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Geo-
gia.

April 28, 1980

Before Goldberg, Charles Clark and Thomas
A Clark, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAN; NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

The Court finds that appellant, Herman
Diamond, has the right to rebuild or repa-
ir and to maintain a dock and walkway at
the same location the original dock and w-
alkway were authorized and built under a
previously issued United States Army Engi-
neers permit, and finds that no addition
or removal of fill material on any part of
the lands owned by Diamond in the Richard-
son Creek area is to be required or permi-
tted in connection with any rebuilding, re-
pair or maintenance of such dock and walk-
way, We therefore affirm -/See local Rule
4 Sf

AFFIRMED

é United States v. Diamond, 512 F 2d 157
Sth Cir) Cert denied 423 U.S. 928 (1975)

2/ See N.L.R.B. v. Amalgamated Clothing
Yesgers of America, 430 F.2d 966 (5th Cir)

7a

TITLE 33 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULA--
TIONS,

33 U.S.C. 8 406

Every person and every corporation
that shall violate any of the provisions
of section 401, 403, and 404 of this tit-
le or any rule or regulation made by the
Secretary of the Army in pursuance of the
provisions of section 404 of this title
shall be deemed quilty of a misdemeanor
and on CONVICTION thereof shall be punish-
ed by a fine not exceeding $2500 nor less
than $ 500, or by imprisonment( in the case
of a natural person) not exceeding one year
or by both such punishments, in the discr-
etion of the court. And further, the remo-
val of any structures erected in violation
of the provisions of the said sections ma
be enforced by injunction of any district
Court exercising jurisdiction in any dist-
rict in which such structures may excist,
and proper proceedings to this end may be
instituted under the direction of the
Attorney General of thg United States.
Mar. 3, 1899, c, 423 Ss 12, 30 Stat. 1151;
Feb, 20,1900,c,23, 2, 31 Stat.32; Mar.3,
1911, c. 231, & 291, 36 Stat. 1167.

TITLE 18,CRIMES AND CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE

18 U.S.C. £1

Offenses Classified.
Notwithstanding any Act of Congress to the
contrary;

(1) Any offense punishable by death or im-

prisonment for a term exceed ng one year
is a felony.

(2) Any other offense is a misdemeanor.

ak ee eee een eee ee et ot re ee eR en See ae —_—- —

8a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For The

Southern District of Georgia
Savannah Division

Civil Action File
No. CV479-87
Herman Diamond

vs JUDGMENT

Lamar C. Walter, Assistant
United States Attorney,
United States Department
of Justice

SS

This action came on for consideration
before the Court, Honorable B. Avant Eden-
field, United States District Judge, pre-
siding and the issues having been duly
considered and a decision having been duly
rendered,

It is Ordered and Adjudged that in
accordance with the Court's opinion of
January 17, 1980, Judgment is hereby ren-
dered in favor of the Defendant, Lamar C.
Walter, Assistant United States Attorney,
United States Department of Justice, and
against the Plaintiff, Herman Diamond.
Costs are assessed against Plaintiff.

Dated at Savannah, Georgia, this 18th day of
January, 1980.
Henry R. Crumley, Jr.
Clerk of Court

By: Yrtthel

Deputy Clerk

9a

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 80-7121

Herman Diamond,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

Lamar C. Walter, Assistant
United States Attorney,
United States Department
of Justice,
Defendant-Appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
( October 7, 1980 )

Before HILL, GARZA and THOMAS A. CLARK,
Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for
rehearing filed in the above entitled and

numpered cause .be and the same is hereby
denied.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

&. oF ted aS “4 Ze Judge

10 a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

United States of America,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 3092

Vv.

Herman Diamond,

)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant. )

C OR? hms eS

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, United
States of America, by and through its
undersigned counsel, and complaining of
the Defendant, HERMAN DIAMOND, alleges
and says as follows:

1. This Honorable Court has juris-
diction over this cause ofaction by
virtue of the fact that the United
States of America is the plaintiff here-
in (Title 28, United States Code, Sec-
tion 1345).

2. The defendant is an individual
residing and living within the Southern
District of Georgia.

3. On April 4, 1973, and at times
unknown to the plaintiff, and prior
thereto, and continuing through until
the present time, the defendant and
others acting as agents of said defend-
ant jointly and severally undertook the
fill of estuarine marshlands within the

jia

navigable waters of the United States

in a marsh adjacent to Richardson Creek,
Oatland Island, Chatham County, Georgia;
and thereby threw, discharged, deposited,
caused to be deposited, procured to be
thrown, and suffered to be deposited from
the shore, within the navigable waters
of the United States, refuse, which in-
cludes but is not limited to the follow-
ing: roots or stumps, broken concrete,
construction materials, and dirt, in
violation of the provisions of Title 33
United States Code, Section 407; and
further, defendant has created an ob-
struction to navigation within the navi-
gable waters of the United States, to
wit: the estuarine marshlands adjacent
to Richardson Creek, Oatland Island,

the said obstruction not being affirma-
tively authorized by Congress and, there-
fore, prohibited by and in violation of
Title 33, United States Code, Section
403.

4. No Department of the Army permit
for dumping of fill within the navigable
waters of Richardson Creek, Oatland
Island, has been issued to the defend-
ant. Defendant has not applied for said
permit.

5. Upon information and belief, it
is alleged:..that the defendant has not
ceased the said depositing of refuse
within the navigable waters of the
United States.

12a

6. The said refuse now lying with-
in the estuarine marshlands of the
United States is and represents an ir-
reparable damage and harm to the
plaintiff and to the people of the
United States.

7. The said deposit of refuse with-
in the navigable waters of the United
States, if allowed to remain, will fur-
ther impair and destroy the navigable
waters of Richardson Creek, Oatland
Island.

8. Unless defendant, HERMAN DIAMOND,
and his agents are restrained from fur-
ther depositing of refuse within the
navigable waters of the United States
the same will continue in their efforts
to complete the unauthorized land fill
operation.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays to
the Court:

1. That a permanent Injunction
issue to restrain and enjoin the defend-
ant from further depositing or dumping
of refuse of any kind within the navi-
gable waters of the United States, parti-
cularly in the marshlands of Richardson
Creek, Oatland Island, Chatham County,
Georgia, the said dumping or depositing
of refuse being in direct violation of
the laws of the United States; and

2. That an Order issue mandatorily
compelling the defendant to remove the
said refuse heretofore deposited within

13a

the navigable waters of the United
States in said area; or

3. In the alternative, that the
Court award damages to the plaintiff,
both compensatory and punitive, along
with the costs of this action, and
such other and further relief as the
Court may deem just, reasonable, and

proper. Rane walling .

Lamar C. Walter
Assistant United States
Attorney

Address:

P. O. Box 8999
Savannah, Georgia 31402

’>

ee ——

ita

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Savannah Division

United States of America,

Plaintil? Civil Action

vs No. 3092

Herman Diamond,
Defendant

FIRST MOTION

State of Georgia,

ee ee ee See eee See See”

Intervenor

NOW COMES the Defendant, Herman
Diamond and moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint on the grounds that it fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be
granted against this Defendant.

SMITH & PORTMAN

BY) Net, Sey hen

Attorney for Defendant

15a

United States District Court
Southern District of Georgia

Savannah Division

United States of America]
Civil No.

Ve J
3092

Herman Diamond

JUDGMENT

This cause came on to be heard on
the complaint of the United States of
America, plaintiff, and the Court having
heard oral evidence and admitted ex-
hibits in open court and the Court hav-
ing entered its findings of fact and
conclusions of law on April 17, 1974,
and it further appearing to the court
that the defendant is committing acts
and is about to commit acts as set
forth in plaintiff's complaint, and will
continue to do so unless restrained by
order of this court, and that the said
acts have caused irreparable injury and
damage to the marshlands described in
the complaint and that immediate and
ixneparable injury, loss or damage to
the described area will result and that
the activities.described in.the complaint
have been conducted by Herman Diamond
without a permit from the Secretary of
Army as required by 33 U.S.C. Section
403, and are in direct violation of the
laws of the United States. (con't.)

16a

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
that the defendant, Herman Diamond, his
servants, agents, employees, attorneys,
successors, and assigns, and each of
them, be permanently enjoined and re-
strained from engaging in or permitting
suffering, or causing, directly or in-
directly, any fill or construction opera-
tions on the area in dispute, bounded on
the north by Richardson Creek and on the
south by Oatland Island Road, Chatham
County, Georgia.

This 17th day of April, 1974.

Alexander A. Lawrence
Chief Judge,

United States District
Court

TITLE 42 U.S.C. 8 1983

Every person who, under color of any
statue, ordinance, regulation, custom,Or
usage, of any State or Territory, subje-
cted, any citizen of the United States or
other person within the jurisdiction there
of to the deprivation of any rights, priv-
aleges, or immunities secured by the Con-
stitution and laws, shall be liable to
the party injured in an action at law,
sult in equity , or other proper vroceed-
ings for redress.

17a

7th Congress] {lst Session
No. 69

GEORGIA CESSION

Communicated to Congress, April 26, 1802

>

Gentlemen of the Senate and the
House of Representatives:

In pursuance of the act entitled,
"An act supplemental to the act, en-
titled An act for an amicable settle-
ment of the limits with the State of
Georgia, and authorizing the establish-
ment of a Government in the Mississippi
territory," James Madison, Secretary
of State, Albert Gallatin, Secretary of
the Treasury, and Levi Lincoln, Attorney
General of the United States, were
appointed commissioners to settle, by
compromise, with the commissioners ap-
pointed by the State of Georgia, the
claims and cession to which the said
act has relation...

Articles of agreement and cession
have accordingly been entered into, and
signed by the said commissioners of the
United States and of Georgia; which, as
they leave a right to Congress to act
upon them legislatively at any time
within six months after their date, I
have thought it my duty immediately to
communicate to the Legislature.

April 26, 1802. bi Sabah ncr sire

18a

City of Washington, April 26, 1802.

Sir:

We have the honor to enclose a copy
of an agreement entered into between the
commissioners of the United States and
those of Georgia in pursuance of the
act, entitled, "An act supplemental to
the act, entitled An act for an amica-
ble settlement of limits with the State
of Georgia, and authorizing the estab-
lishment of a Government in the Missis-
sippi territory."

The nature and importance of the
transaction have induced the insertion
of a clause which renders it necessary
that the subject should be communicated
to Congress, during their present ses-
sion.

We have the honor to be,
very respectfully, sir, your obedient
servants,

JAMES MADISON,
ALBERT GALLATIN,
LEVI LINCOLN.

The President of the United States.

ART. II. The United States accept the
cession above mentioned, and on the
conditions therein expressed: and they
cede to the State of Georgia whatever
claim, right, or title, they may have

to the jurisdiction or soil of any lands
lying within the United States, and out

SC AIL EI LAE CATE INERTIA i AN TOR Sits RELA Pale AAA

19a

of the proper boundaries of any other
State, and situated south of the south-
ern boundaries of the States of Tennessee,
North Carolina, and South Carolina, and,
east of the boundary line hereinabove
described, as the eastern boundary of
the territory ceded by Georgia to the
United States.

In faith whereof the respective
commissioners have signed these presents
and affixed hereunto their seals.

Done at the city of Washington, in
the District of Columbia, this twenty-
fourth day of April, one thousand eight
hundred and two.

JAMES MADISON, [L.S.]
ALBERT GALLATIN, [L.S.]
LEVI LINCOLN, (L.S.]
Commissioners on the part of the United States.

JAMES JACKSON, (L.S.]
ABRAH. BALDWIN, [L.S.]
JOHN MILLEDGE, (L.S.]

Commissioners on the part of the
State of Georgia.

J. Franklin, Senator of the )
United States for )
North Carolina, )
Samuel A. Otis, Secretary of )
the Senate of the )Witnesses
United States, ‘)
John Beckley, Clerk of the House)
of Representatives )
of the United )
States. )

20a

ARTICLES OF THE CONSTITUTION

Art. 4. 8366. .3..7are. it

New States Admitted. New states may be
admitted by the Congress into this
Union; but no new State shall be form-
ed or erected within the Jurisdiction
of any other State; nor any State be
formed by the Junction of two or more
States, or Parts of States, without the
Consent of the Legislatures of the
States concerned as well as of the Con-
gress.

Art. 6. Sec. 1. Parag. 2:

Constitution and Treaties as the Supreme
Law. This Constitution, and the Laws

of the United States which shall be

made in Pursuance thereof; and all
Treaties made or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Consti-
tution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.

GEORGIA STATE CONSTITUTION

Article 1, Sec 6 Para 1, RIPARIAN RIGHTS

Tidewater titles; confirmed, The
Act of the General Assembly approved De-
cember 16,1902, which extends the Title
of ownership of lands abutting on tidal
water to the low water mark is hereby r-
atified and confirmed.

21a

Title 33 U.S.C. Sec. l

REGULATIONS BY SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR NAVIGATION OF WATERS GENERALLY

It shall be the duty of the Secre-
tary of the Army to prescribe such regu-
lations for the use, administration, and
navigation of the navigable waters of
the United States as in his judgment the
public necessity may require for the pro-
tection of life and property, or of
operations of the United States in chan-
nel improvement, covering all matters not
specifically delegated by law to some
other executive department. Such regu-
lations shall be posted, in conspicuous
and appropriate places, for the informa-
tion of the public.

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
(title 33, Navigation) 1973

§209.260(K)(1)(ii). (p.362) Shoreward limit
of jurisdiction. Regulatory jurisdiction
in coastal areas extends to the line on
the shore reached by the plane of the
mean (average) high water.

Where precise determination of the
actual location of the line becomes neces~-
sary, it must be established by survey
with reference to the available tidal
datum, preferably averaged over a period
of 18.6 years.

TAMIR. A a cits od ad? te

22a

TITLE 18 U.S.C.§ 1

Offenses Classified,
18 U.S.C.8 1 (1) Any offense punishable by
death or imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year is a felony.”

18 U.S.C. 8 1 (2), Any other offense is a
misdemeanor.

18 U.S.C.8 3, Offense mala prohibita;

For violations of regulatory statues, for
constituting mala prohibita.

18 U.S.C.8 2236 Searches without
warrant.

Whoever, being an officer,agent or employee
of the United States or any department or
agencythereof, engaged in the enforcement
of any law of the United States, searches
any private dwelling used and occupied as
such dwelling without a warrant directing
such searches, or maliciously and without
reasonable cause searches any other build-
ing or PROPERTY without a search warrant,
shall be fined for the first offense not
more than $1,000; and for a subsequent of-
fense shall be fined not more than $1,000
2 imprisoned not more than one year, or
oth.

BOUNDRIES OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA.

Ga, Code aatOly Boundries of the State.
he boundries of Georgia as deduced from
the_Constitution of Beafort, The Articles
of Cession and agreement with the United
States of America, entered into on the 24

th of April 1802,

23a

LAWS OF GEORGIA

GA. Code, 15-201: Extent of Sovereignty

and Jurisdiction, of this state extend
to all places within the limits of her
boundries, Except so far as she has vol-
untarily ceded the same to the United S-
tates or adjacent states over a particu-
lar localities.

GA’ Code; 85-1310; Levees and ditches,Co-
nstruction Authorized, All persons owning
or who may hereafter own lands on any w-
atercource are authorized and empowered
to ditch and embank their lands, so as to
protect the same from freshets and over-
flows in the said watercourse: Provided
always that the said ditching and embank
ing does not divert said watercourse from
its ordinary channel.

Ga. Code; 105-1401; Interfering with the
enjoyment of private property, being an
obsolute right of every citizen, every
act of another which unlawfully interfer
es with such enjoyment is a tort for wh-
ich an action shall lie.

GA Code, 105-1406; Damages for continu-~

ing trespass, are limited to those which
have occurred before action is commenced
Subsequent damages flowing from a conti-
nnuance of the trespass gives a new cau-
se of action.

Ga. Code; /@5-1402 ; Bare possession of
lands shall authorize the possessor to
recover damages from any person who sha-
11 wrongfully, in any manner, interfere
with such possession.

nner acc PAOD STOR IA EOL EEO ENS SELES LIE eh in: SY PE FE OT AO A MEER SER EC SD

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_0980%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.